Friends, is the conflation problem clearer here?

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/conflation.pdf

via Friends, is the… | Facebook.

Friends, I wonder if this is clear to you:

CONFLATION OF EVENT AND EXPOSURE. This conflation of event and exposure is what I call the confusion between X and F(X), also expressed in Chapter x as the Aristotelian v/s the Thalesian. The error consists on focusing on knowledge about a variable, say X when we should be dealing with a function of that variable F(X) (here, the effect of X on you, the exposure to X). We may never understand X, or be marred with perceptual errors, but we can control F(X). The fool thinks the Black Swan problem resides in better prediction of X, rather than the much simpler problem of mitigation by controlling F(X). Sometimes scholars make the distinction then go on conflating the two. Focusing on F(X) is not predictive, focusing on X is necessarily so. And the connection to antifragility is as follows: F(X) can be antifragile.

more technically explained in the Section II of this document:

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/probability.pdf

via Friends, I wonder… | Facebook.

INVERSE DESIGNATOR: term used often with genuine intentions which should be interpreted as the exact opposite. Examples: “I don’t care about money” or “I will be brief” in life; “Real world solution” or “practical” in academic writings, means overly theoretical; “honestly”, “I am trying to help you” or “I am ethical” business; “empirical evidence” economics;

New entry in Glossary

via 1 INVERSE DESIGNATOR:….

I wonder how many would put ethics ahead of reputation; & the divergence is accelerating.

via I wonder how many… | Facebook.